Author name: RVM News

Hillary Clinton Turns on Joe Biden: He Put Us in a ‘Terrible Dilemma’ [WATCH]
News

Hillary Clinton Turns on Joe Biden: He Put Us in a ‘Terrible Dilemma’ [WATCH]

/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is publicly criticizing former President Joe Biden’s decision to seek a second term in 2024, arguing that his choice to remain in the race damaged both his political legacy and the Democratic Party’s chances of retaining the White House, as reported by The Post Millennial.

Speaking Monday during a conversation with New Yorker editor David Remnick in New York City, Clinton said Biden should have stepped aside well before the 2024 election cycle intensified and allowed Democrats to choose a nominee through a competitive primary process.

Clinton’s remarks come nearly two years after President Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 general election following Biden’s withdrawal from the race.

According to Clinton, Biden’s decision to pursue re-election created a difficult situation for Democrats and ultimately contributed to the party’s defeat.

“He made a terrible mistake. He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy, and for the country.”

The former Democratic presidential nominee argued that Biden should have announced in 2023 that he would not seek another term.

“I believe if he had kept to that plan and said, in, say, the late summer of ’23, that he wasn’t going to run, that he was going to pass the torch to the next generation, we would have had a real contest,” she said.

Clinton also expressed confidence that a different Democratic nominee emerging from a competitive primary would have had a stronger chance against Trump in the general election.

“Very sadly, I believe whoever emerged from that contest would have beaten Donald Trump,” Clinton said.

Questions about Biden’s age and fitness for office were a recurring issue throughout much of his presidency and became a central topic during the 2024 campaign.

For months before Biden’s June 2024 debate against Trump, polling consistently showed voter concerns regarding his age and ability to serve another four years.

Republicans repeatedly highlighted instances in which Biden appeared confused, struggled through public remarks, or delivered uneven performances during speeches and events.

Democratic officials and many media figures frequently pushed back against those concerns and defended Biden’s ability to continue serving.

The issue intensified following Biden’s debate performance against Trump in June 2024, which prompted increased scrutiny from donors, elected officials, and party leaders.

Calls for Biden to leave the race grew in the weeks that followed as concerns mounted within Democratic circles about the party’s ability to compete in November.

Reflecting on that period, Clinton said Democrats found themselves trapped once Biden decided to remain in the race.

“But once he didn’t move,” Clinton said, “and held on for as long as he did, we were in a terrible dilemma.”

Biden eventually ended his re-election campaign in July 2024 after weeks of pressure from influential Democrats, major donors, and party operatives.

His departure left Vice President Kamala Harris as the party’s nominee. Harris secured the nomination without participating in a contested primary campaign after Biden exited the race.

Democrats were then forced to quickly assemble a national campaign heading into the final months of the election season.

Trump ultimately defeated Harris and returned to the White House, securing a second non-consecutive term as president.

Clinton’s comments represent one of the strongest public criticisms of Biden’s 2024 campaign decision from a prominent Democrat.

Her remarks also add to an ongoing debate within the Democratic Party over whether an earlier transition to a new generation of leadership could have changed the outcome of the election.

The comments come as Democrats continue evaluating the events that led to their loss in 2024 and weigh potential paths forward ahead of future national elections.

California Launches Absurd Program Forcing Businesses to Prove They’re ‘Gay Enough’ for State Contracts [WATCH]
News

California Launches Absurd Program Forcing Businesses to Prove They’re ‘Gay Enough’ for State Contracts [WATCH]

/

A report published by City Journal is drawing attention to a California program that provides contracting opportunities to businesses certified as LGBT-owned, including a verification process that requires applicants to submit documentation related to their sexual orientation or gender identity, as reported by Townhall.

According to the report, businesses seeking certification under the state’s LGBT Business Enterprise program must complete an application process designed to verify that qualifying ownership requirements have been met before becoming eligible for certain contracting opportunities.

The certification process has become the subject of debate after details of the application requirements circulated widely on social media.

The program emerged after years of advocacy from activists who argued that LGBT-owned businesses faced barriers in obtaining contracts and business opportunities within California’s utility sector.

Those efforts ultimately resulted in policies administered through the California Public Utilities Commission that expanded contracting opportunities for businesses certified as LGBT-owned.

According to the report, approximately $633 million in contracts were made available to businesses that could demonstrate a qualifying ownership status under the program.

The certification process includes a questionnaire intended to establish whether an applicant qualifies as a member of the LGBT community.

The report states that applicants may be asked to provide documentation such as marriage licenses, evidence of “completed or attempted parenting efforts,” records connected to gender transition procedures, or letters from what the program describes as a “recognized LGBT organization.”

Applicants are also required to submit multiple forms of identification as part of the verification process.

The requirements gained broader attention after a social media post highlighted portions of the certification materials and questioned the legality of the process.

The post stated, “California has a gay certification checklist to ensure taxpayer funded contracts only for lgbtq people, are being awarded to people who are gay enough.”

The post continued, “Extremely bizarre, not to mention highly illegal.”

The certification program is intended to verify eligibility before businesses receive recognition as LGBT-owned enterprises.

Similar certification programs exist for other categories of businesses that seek preferential consideration or inclusion in supplier diversity initiatives.

According to the report, applicants who knowingly provide false information during the certification process can face significant penalties.

The penalties include fines of up to $5,000 and the possibility of up to one year in prison for fraudulent claims made during the application process.

The publication of the report has generated renewed discussion about whether governments should provide contracting advantages based on characteristics such as sexual orientation or gender identity.

Critics have questioned whether the requirements and resulting contracting preferences can withstand legal scrutiny, particularly as courts continue to review diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the country.

Supporters of such initiatives have argued that certification programs are designed to identify businesses owned by groups that have historically faced barriers to economic opportunities and government contracting.

The report has added California’s program to the growing national debate over diversity-based contracting preferences and the standards used to verify eligibility.

Questions surrounding the certification requirements, the use of taxpayer-funded contracts, and the legal framework supporting such programs are likely to continue as scrutiny of diversity-focused initiatives increases nationwide.

Inside Gavin Newsom’s Luxurious Empire as DOJ Probe Looms Over His $30 Million Fortune [WATCH]
News

Inside Gavin Newsom’s Luxurious Empire as DOJ Probe Looms Over His $30 Million Fortune [WATCH]

/

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s announcement that he and his wife are the subjects of a federal investigation has brought renewed attention to the couple’s financial holdings, business interests, and nonprofit activities as questions continue to swirl around the probe, as reported by The New York Post.

Newsom revealed Monday in a pre-recorded social media video that the Department of Justice is investigating him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

The governor accused President Donald Trump of directing the FBI and DOJ to pursue the matter because of a potential 2028 presidential campaign.

According to sources cited in the report, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California is investigating allegations raised by California whistleblowers involving Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s taxes, former Newsom chief of staff Dana Williamson, and potentially other statehouse staff members.

WATCH:

The renewed attention has also highlighted the governor’s substantial personal fortune, which is estimated at roughly $30 million.

By comparison, Newsom’s annual gubernatorial salary of $245,929 represents only a small portion of his overall wealth.

Newsom entered politics as a wealthy businessman before becoming mayor of San Francisco in 2004.

At the time, he was reportedly worth approximately $6.9 million, largely due to his ownership interests in wine and hospitality ventures that grew through relationships connected to the influential Getty family.

His father, William Newsom, was an attorney and appeals court judge who maintained a close relationship with billionaire Gordon Getty.

William Newsom was entrusted with delivering a $2.2 million ransom following the July 10, 1973, kidnapping of John Paul Getty III by the Italian mafia.

Gordon Getty’s son, Billy Getty, later partnered with Newsom in launching the Balboa Cafe and PlumpJack businesses. PlumpJack eventually expanded into a network of wineries, restaurants, and hotels throughout California.

Newsom has previously suggested that tensions developed between him and Billy Getty due to his relationship with Gordon Getty, contributing to a falling out between the former business partners.

The governor’s business interests have continued to attract attention during his political career. Previous reporting found that approximately $50,000 in donor funds was spent at PlumpJack properties.

Newsom and his wife also own two high-value California properties.

WATCH:

In 2018, shortly before becoming governor, the couple purchased a 12,600-square-foot residence in Fair Oaks for $3.7 million.

State records show they financed $2.7 million of the purchase through a mortgage. Rather than moving into the governor’s mansion, Newsom chose to remain at the Fair Oaks property.

The family later purchased a home in Kentfield, located in Marin County, about 20 miles north of San Francisco. The property was acquired near the end of 2024 for $9.1 million and carried a $6.5 million mortgage.

The move allowed the couple’s four children to attend local private schools.

Newsom has also generated income through publishing. His memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” has been viewed by some political observers as laying the groundwork for a possible 2028 presidential campaign.

Campaign finance records showed that Newsom’s political action committee spent approximately $1.6 million purchasing copies of the book. Disclosure forms indicated he earned more than $100,000 through publication payments and royalties.

While Newsom’s podcasts have attracted attention as another possible vehicle for a future national campaign, disclosures indicate they have not generated personal income because state rules prohibit him from receiving such earnings while serving in office.

Much of the current focus surrounding the federal investigation appears tied to Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit and business activities.

Siebel Newsom maintains a separate blind trust reportedly holding at least $1 million in assets. She serves as the founder of the nonprofit Representation Project and receives an annual salary exceeding $150,000 from the organization.

The nonprofit has also paid approximately $150,000 annually to Girls Club Entertainment, Siebel Newsom’s media production company, which produces documentary films.

Another nonprofit founded by Siebel Newsom, the California Partners Project, has also drawn attention.

Previous reporting indicated that more than $4.4 million in donations were directed to the organization from groups and individuals with business interests before the state.

The California Partners Project has worked on initiatives overlapping with those of the Representation Project.

While such fundraising activities are legal, they have generated concerns among critics regarding potential conflicts of interest.

“They are not breaking any laws,” said Dan Schnur, a teacher of political communications at USC and UC Berkeley, “but [Newsom] is following this law more aggressively than any other politician in modern memory.”

Financial disclosure records also show that Newsom previously held investments in companies, including Intel and Merck & Co., before becoming governor. He currently maintains a blind trust reportedly worth more than $1 million and invested primarily in mutual funds.

WATCH:

JD Vance Torches Jessica Tarlov on Live TV for Peddling Iran Deal Nonsense [WATCH]
News

JD Vance Torches Jessica Tarlov on Live TV for Peddling Iran Deal Nonsense [WATCH]

/

Vice President JD Vance defended the Trump administration’s newly announced agreement with Iran during an appearance on Fox News’ “The Five,” where he challenged criticism of the deal and argued that opponents were overlooking key conditions attached to any potential benefits for Tehran, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

Vance joined the program Tuesday evening as a guest co-host while promoting his new book, “Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith.”

During the discussion, he sparred with fellow co-host Jessica Tarlov over reports concerning the administration’s agreement with Iran.

Tarlov referenced reporting from The Wall Street Journal and Axios and suggested that concerns had been raised about the agreement by CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The exchange quickly turned into a broader debate over what Iran would receive under the framework of the agreement and what conditions would have to be met before any economic benefits could be realized.

Vance argued that critics were focusing on potential gains for Iran while ignoring the concessions and changes the country would be required to make.

“Jessica, you’re making the same mistake, unfortunately, that a lot of the Iranian propagandists make when they talk about this,” Vance said.

He continued by arguing that opponents of the agreement were discussing possible benefits without acknowledging the requirements imposed on Iran.

“They talk about the benefits to the Iranians without any of the things the Iranians would have to give up and have to change in order to get those benefits,” Vance said.

The vice president also addressed claims involving a reported $300 billion investment fund tied to the agreement.

“So you mentioned $300 billion fund, let’s be clear about this — not a single cent of American money under any circumstance, no matter what the Iranians do, goes to Iran, not a single cent of American money!” Vance said.

Tarlov responded by noting, “But they got other money.”

Vance then explained how the administration views foreign investment provisions that could become available if Iran meets the terms outlined in the agreement.

“Here’s what this says. This says, for example, let’s say that the United Arab Emirates, who have been a great ally, let’s say they want to invest in a power plant in Iran, what this deal provides is that if the Iranians have done everything we require them to do, then we will allow the United Arab Emirates to do that,” Vance said.

According to Vance, current restrictions prevent such investments from moving forward without U.S. approval.

Republican Vice Presidential Candidate JD Vance Delivers Remarks In Philadelphia, United States, on 22 September 2025.

“But they can’t do that right now without American approval. So we’re fundamentally saying if the Iranians transform how they interact with the world, we will transform how the world economy interacts with Iran,” Vance said.

The vice president emphasized that Iran would not receive any benefits automatically and argued that compliance with the agreement’s requirements would be necessary before economic opportunities became available.

“But if they don’t do any of that stuff, they don’t get any of these benefits.

So I think all the Democrats who are saying, well, the Iranians get all these things, they don’t get anything unless there’s been a complete transformation of how Iran interacts with the world, that would be a huge win for America!” Vance added.

Vance also argued that the United States had already achieved major strategic objectives regardless of whether Iran ultimately complies with the agreement.

“If they don’t do any of these things, we don’t give them anything. They don’t receive anything. Their nuclear program is still destroyed. Their military is still destroyed. Their missile program and industrial base is still destroyed. We fundamentally have transformed the Middle East. Whether they comply or not, this is just icing on the cake, assuming they do all the right things,” Vance said.

The discussion highlighted continuing debate over the administration’s approach to Iran, with supporters arguing that the agreement provides incentives for behavioral change while maintaining significant leverage through economic restrictions and approval requirements.

Johnson & Johnson CEO Credits Trump Tax Cuts For Giant 55 Billion American Investment Drive [WATCH]
News

Johnson & Johnson CEO Credits Trump Tax Cuts For Giant 55 Billion American Investment Drive [WATCH]

/

Healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson is expanding its footprint in the United States with a sweeping $55 billion investment initiative, a move company leadership says was helped by tax policies enacted under President Donald Trump’s administration and a favorable business climate for domestic manufacturing.

Speaking Tuesday on FOX Business’ “Mornings with Maria,” Johnson & Johnson Chairman and CEO Joaquin Duato said the company’s decision reflects confidence in the American workforce, investment environment, and tax structure.

“We have the best talent, we have the best investment environment and, very importantly, we have now the tax policy enacted with this administration that has enabled us to be competitive,” Duato said.

The CEO argued that previous tax conditions placed American-based companies at a disadvantage compared to competitors headquartered overseas.

“We’re playing with a hand tied to our back compared to companies that were domiciled outside of the U.S.,” he said.

Duato added that recent policy changes have improved the company’s ability to grow domestically.

“Now we can create high-skilled jobs, we can invest in America, and we can be competitive,” he said.

The investment package includes a more than $1 billion commitment to a new U.S. Vision manufacturing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Florida project is part of a broader effort by the company to increase domestic production across multiple areas of its business.

According to Duato, Johnson & Johnson’s long-term objective is to manufacture all of its medicines, medical technologies, and related products in the United States.

He described the investment effort as a “show of confidence in American manufacturing.”

The company has undergone significant changes in recent years and is now concentrating its efforts on pharmaceuticals and medical technology following the separation of its consumer health business.

Discussing the company’s future direction, Duato emphasized a focus on research, innovation and the development of new treatments.

“We are now focused on science and innovation. So what is our goal now? Our goal is to continue to deliver sustained growth through patient breakthroughs,” he said.

Among the company’s recent developments is Icotyde, a newly approved once-daily oral treatment for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Duato said the medication was designed to deliver efficacy and safety that can compete with injectable biologic treatments.

He predicted the medicine will “transform… autoimmune diseases.”

Beyond pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson is also pursuing advancements in medical technology. The company is currently seeking approval for its first robotic surgical system, which is intended to assist surgeons and improve surgical outcomes.

The investment announcement comes as manufacturers increasingly weigh where to locate production facilities and research operations.

Johnson & Johnson’s decision to expand heavily within the United States adds to a growing list of large-scale domestic investments aimed at increasing production capacity and creating high-skilled jobs.

Duato highlighted the company’s diversified portfolio as a key reason for its confidence in future growth.

“We are not a one-trick pony company. We’re a company with a stable of blockbusters,” he said.

The CEO noted that Johnson & Johnson currently has dozens of major products generating significant revenue.

“We have 28 platforms at Johnson & Johnson of more than $1 billion, so that gives us the confidence to be so bold to say we have line of sight to double-digit growth for Johnson & Johnson by the end of the decade, and that is remarkable for a company which is more than $100 billion.”

The $55 billion investment plan, including the Jacksonville manufacturing facility, represents one of the company’s largest commitments to domestic operations and highlights its strategy of expanding production, research, and technology development within the United States.

Trump Endorsements Deliver Two Victories, Miss in Georgia Governor Race [WATCH]
News

Trump Endorsements Deliver Two Victories, Miss in Georgia Governor Race [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump’s influence in Republican primaries faced another major test Tuesday as voters in Georgia and Alabama headed to the polls for high-profile runoff elections, as reported by Fox News.

While Trump-backed candidates scored victories in two of the three marquee contests, a wealthy Georgia businessman delivered a notable setback by defeating a candidate endorsed by both Trump and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

In Alabama’s Republican Senate runoff, Rep. Barry Moore, a member of the House Freedom Caucus and longtime Trump ally, defeated former Navy SEAL sniper Jared Hudson.

Moore entered the race with Trump’s endorsement and secured a comfortable victory in the deeply Republican state.

Trump also notched a win in Georgia’s Republican Senate runoff. Rep. Mike Collins received a late endorsement from the president over the weekend and defeated former college football coach Derek Dooley, who had been backed by Kemp.

Collins now advances to a general election showdown against Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff.

The race is expected to be one of the most closely watched Senate contests of the 2026 midterms and could play a major role in determining whether Republicans maintain their narrow Senate majority.

Following Collins’ victory, Trump quickly pledged additional support for the campaign.

The president wrote that he would “be doing Big TRUMP Rallies for Mike in Georgia.”

The biggest surprise of the night came in Georgia’s Republican gubernatorial runoff.

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones entered the race with endorsements from both Trump and Kemp.

Despite that support, Jones was defeated by billionaire businessman Rick Jackson, who campaigned as an outsider and invested more than $100 million of his own money into the race.

Jackson launched his campaign months after Trump had already endorsed Jones, but repeatedly emphasized his admiration for the president and argued that his business background mirrored Trump’s approach to governing.

“I just thought, you know, if you had somebody doing business solutions for the state of Georgia, just like Trump is for the United States, I just felt like I would have a major impact on the state of Georgia, and so that was one of the reasons I wanted to get in. I was inspired by President Trump,” Jackson told Fox News Digital.

Jackson also argued that he would be closely aligned with the president’s agenda if elected governor.

“I’m going to be Trump’s favorite governor because we’re just alike on the way that we handle business and handle problems, and I want to do exactly in Georgia what he’s doing at the federal government,” he said in a Fox News Digital interview Sunday.

Rather than criticizing Jackson after the loss, Trump praised the businessman from abroad while attending the G7 Summit in Europe.

“Rick Jackson ran a great TRUMP Campaign. Very smart! Was with me on Saturday Night making a pitch. Amazing!!!” Trump wrote on social media.

The president also praised Jones, writing that Jackson “won against a great guy, Burt Jones, who has a fantastic future!!!”

The Georgia result marked one of the few recent instances in which a Trump-endorsed candidate failed to prevail.

Over the past several weeks, Trump-backed candidates have defeated incumbents and rivals in major Republican contests across Indiana, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Texas.

However, Trump’s streak suffered another interruption earlier this month in Iowa. There, Rep. Randy Feenstra lost the Republican gubernatorial primary despite receiving a late endorsement from the president.

Feenstra was narrowly defeated by businessman, farmer, and former political strategist Zach Lahn, who received support from organizations aligned with the Make America Healthy Again movement and Turning Point USA.

Trump’s endorsement record rebounded last week in South Carolina, where Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette finished first in the Republican gubernatorial primary and advanced to a runoff.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, another Trump-backed candidate, also avoided a runoff in South Carolina’s Republican Senate primary.

Republican strategists argued that Jackson’s victory in Georgia reflected unique circumstances rather than a rejection of Trump’s influence.

One Trump political operative noted that Jackson spent unprecedented sums in the race and embraced Trump throughout the campaign.

“Rick Jackson set a record for spending in a statewide Republican primary. He spent Tom Steyer-level money in a state a fraction of the size of California. That’s going to have an impact,” the operative said.

The operative added, “Rick bearhugged Trump. All of his ads and material was about how he’s going to be Trump’s favorite governor. So the race was not really a referendum on Trump.”

Veteran Republican strategist Matt Gorman echoed that assessment.

“Rick was a great candidate. Trump’s endorsement can’t do all the work. It’s a massive value add, but it’s not a panacea. Now the focus is on coming together for the fall,” Gorman said.

Jackson also received a late endorsement from Sen. Ted Cruz, who campaigned alongside him during a rally on the eve of the runoff.

“Rick has an extraordinary record, an extraordinary life story. And I also think he’s positioned to win. And the stakes are too high. This election is a battleground all across the country. We can’t afford to lose Georgia,” Cruz told Fox News Digital.

When asked whether his endorsements placed him at odds with Trump in certain races, Cruz rejected the suggestion.

“No. Not remotely…. The president and I agree on the vast majority of races. What I try to do in every race is endorse the strongest conservative who can win. And typically, I get in races late in the race at a time where my support might be able to make a difference and be helpful,” Cruz said.

Stephen A. Smith Declares Karmelo Anthony Guilty of Cold-Blooded Murder in Blistering Podcast [WATCH]
News

Stephen A. Smith Declares Karmelo Anthony Guilty of Cold-Blooded Murder in Blistering Podcast [WATCH]

/

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith offered strong reactions to the conviction and sentencing of Karmelo Anthony during a recent episode of his “Straight Shooter” podcast, saying he disagreed with portions of the legal arguments presented in the case while also raising concerns about the jury selection process, as reported by Fox News.

Anthony was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison for the April 2025 killing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf during a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas.

The case attracted national attention and generated extensive public debate throughout the year-long legal proceedings.

Family of Slain Teen Austin Metcalf Faces Terrifying Death Threats as Karmelo Anthony Supporters Turn Violent

Discussing the verdict on his podcast, Smith made clear that he viewed Anthony as responsible for Metcalf’s death.

“Karmelo Anthony murdered Austin Metcalf. There is no other way to slice it.”

Anthony’s defense team had argued that he acted in self-defense during the confrontation. Smith directly challenged that position while discussing the events that led up to the fatal encounter.

According to trial testimony, the incident began when Anthony entered a tent belonging to another school’s team during a track meet at Kuykendall Stadium in Frisco.

Austin Metcalf and his twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, approached Anthony and asked him to leave because it was not assigned to his team.

Smith questioned whether the circumstances justified Anthony’s actions.

“How does that justify Karmelo Anthony pulling out a knife?” Smith asked.

While expressing support for the murder conviction, Smith also voiced dissatisfaction with aspects of the trial, particularly the composition of the jury.

The trial jury consisted of 12 jurors and six alternates, for a total of 18 jurors involved in the proceedings.

Smith said he was troubled by what he viewed as a lack of Black representation on the jury.

“I’m not happy with the sentencing because I’m not happy with the jury — 18 jurors, about six minorities, none of whom happen to be Black? I don’t believe that’s being judged by a ‘jury of your peers’,” he said.

Despite those concerns, Smith repeatedly emphasized that the case should not lose sight of the victim and the impact on Austin Metcalf’s family.

Reflecting on the tragedy, Smith discussed the perspective of parents whose children participate in school activities.

“You know what really hits home for me?” he said before pausing.

“I think it would hit home for any parent who sends their child to high school — is fully aware that they’re competing in track, and they get a call or a knock at the door, and they’re told that their child is never, ever coming home again.”

The comments generated significant discussion online as supporters and critics debated Smith’s position on both the conviction and the jury selection process.

Following the podcast, Smith’s representative, Solange Sinclair, provided additional context in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“Stephen A. mentioned this to highlight the case should not have to do with race, but rather raise questions regarding the jury chosen and the sentence length. With the Texas charge of criminally negligent homicide, he questions why Karmelo Anthony could not receive this sentence, and also noted the jury felt biased given the lack of African American representation to be judged by a jury of Anthony’s ‘peers’.”

Anthony’s conviction concluded one of the most closely watched criminal cases in Texas over the past year.

The case drew widespread public attention because of the circumstances surrounding the incident and the intense debate that followed throughout the investigation and trial.

The 35-year sentence handed down after the conviction marked the end of the trial phase, though public discussion surrounding the case has continued in the weeks following the verdict.

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Our House’ Rant Backfires as Critics Torch Her Over Clinton Era Scandals
News

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Our House’ Rant Backfires as Critics Torch Her Over Clinton Era Scandals

/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew criticism from conservatives after commenting on President Donald Trump’s UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, prompting opponents to revisit controversies from the Clinton administration and challenge her remarks about the presidential residence, as reported by Fox News.

Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee who lost to Trump, renewed her criticism of the White House UFC event on Sunday as the competition took place on the South Lawn.

In a social media post, Clinton wrote, “Remember, during today’s literal cage match on the White House grounds: No matter what, it’s not his house. It’s our house. Get a hat, coaster, or sticker to support groups and candidates who will respect the form and the function of the people’s house.”

The post also promoted merchandise benefiting political groups and candidates she said would respect the institution.

The UFC Freedom 250 event was held as part of celebrations surrounding America’s upcoming 250th anniversary and was attended by thousands of spectators, including active-duty military personnel.

President Trump attended the event alongside UFC CEO Dana White.

Clinton’s comments quickly generated responses from Republican lawmakers, conservative commentators, and political organizations.

Tim Burchett was among the most prominent critics. Responding to Clinton’s post, Burchett referenced events associated with former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

“They literally rented out the Lincoln Bedroom and don’t forget Bill’s activity in the Oval Office,” Burchett said. “The vandalism that went on when you left was also well-documented.”

The remarks referenced controversies that emerged during and after Bill Clinton’s presidency, including the Monica Lewinsky scandal and allegations involving damage to White House property following the transition out of office in 2001.

Retired Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, who has said he carried the presidential nuclear football during Bill Clinton’s administration, also responded publicly to Hillary Clinton’s criticism.

“I was the Air Force [lieutenant colonel] who carried the nuclear football for your husband inside that ‘people’s house’ you’re suddenly so precious about. I saw it all up close for two years,” Patterson wrote.

Patterson continued by criticizing both Clintons and referencing several controversies associated with the administration.

Conservative watchdog leader Tom Fitton also weighed in, posting, “Woman who stole White House furniture has something to say about ‘our house’.”

The official Republican Party social media account joined the discussion as well, posting a brief response suggesting Clinton “sit this one out.”

The exchange also revived discussion about a Government Accountability Office review requested by former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia after the Clinton administration left office.

According to reports at the time, the GAO estimated approximately $15,000 in damage to White House property. Barr had claimed the administration treated the executive mansion “worse than college freshmen checking out of their dorm rooms.”

The GAO report concluded that some of the incidents described as pranks appeared to have been intentional, which could constitute criminal conduct.

Supporters of the Clinton administration argued that the reported damage was consistent with what previous administrations experienced during transitions.

The UFC Freedom 250 event itself became a political flashpoint long before it was held.

Critics questioned whether a mixed martial arts event belonged on White House grounds, while supporters described it as a celebration tied to America’s 250th anniversary and an example of the administration’s effort to connect with a broad audience.

Clinton’s latest comments ensured that debate continued long after the final fight concluded, with social media users on both sides revisiting decades-old political controversies while arguing over the significance of the White House event.

Fox News Digital reported that requests for comment were sent to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation and to Bill Clinton’s office regarding the criticism.

Horror Video Resurfaces of Brazilian Bungee Instructor Jumping With Child Before Fatal Bridge Tragedy [WATCH]
News

Horror Video Resurfaces of Brazilian Bungee Instructor Jumping With Child Before Fatal Bridge Tragedy [WATCH]

/

Authorities in Brazil have charged three bungee-jumping instructors with homicide following the death of a 21-year-old woman during an unlicensed jump near São Paulo, as previously posted videos of one of the instructors have drawn renewed attention online, as reported by The New York Post.

Maria Eduarda Rodrigues de Freitas, 21, died Saturday after falling from the structure known as “Skeleton Bridge” in Limeira, near São Paulo. Investigators allege she was launched from the bridge without the required bungee cord being attached.

The incident occurred during an operation authorities described as an unlicensed bungee-jumping business operating from the abandoned railway bridge.

According to Brazilian media reports, Luis Felipe Feliciano Egoroff, 32, Vitor de Freitas Goncalves, 27, and Maicon Fernandes Cintra, 42, have been charged with homicide in connection with Rodrigues de Freitas’ death.

Investigators believe the three men were among the instructors seen in video footage that captured the moments before Rodrigues de Freitas was pushed from the bridge.

As the investigation continued, older social media videos featuring Feliciano Egoroff resurfaced online. The videos reportedly show the instructor performing a variety of high-risk stunts at the same bridge before his arrest.

One video from 2023 attracted particular attention. The footage allegedly shows Feliciano Egoroff holding a bungee cord with one hand while carrying a young child who is holding onto his neck before both jump from the bridge.

The resurfaced clip generated strong reactions online.

“Let’s put an end to these bizarre practices! Hold them all accountable for crime!” one social media user wrote.

Another commenter described the video as “Total irresponsibility.”

Additional videos and photographs posted to social media reportedly showed Feliciano Egoroff standing on narrow ledges near the bridge and participating in various jumping activities at the site.

Authorities say two of the instructors left the area after realizing what had occurred. According to reports, the pair were later located with the assistance of a military helicopter.

The investigation has also produced new details regarding what may have led to the fatal incident.

Deputy Andréa Dantas Levy, who is involved in the case, told O Globo that two suspects claimed they experienced a “blackout” and did not remember attaching the safety rope before Rodrigues de Freitas was sent from the bridge.

The attorneys representing the three charged instructors have stated that their clients had years of experience conducting jumps and had never previously been involved in a fatal incident.

Authorities initially detained six individuals in connection with the investigation. Three instructors were formally charged, while three additional employees who were reportedly working in a tent near the jump site were later released without charges.

According to reports, Rodrigues de Freitas had been carrying a 360-degree camera during the jump. The device was reportedly offered by the company as an optional add-on for an additional fee beyond the cost of the jump itself.

Brazilian media reported that the camera was not found at the base of the bridge after the incident.

The death has prompted an outpouring of tributes from family members and friends.

“My beloved daughter, today alone I wanted to hug you more than a thousand times,” Rodrigues de Freitas’ mother wrote on social media, according to Estadao.

“How much your departure hurts me. I love you eternally, my princess. And thank you so much for being a part of my life for these 21 years. What an honor it was to hear you call me mom. God, thank you for this privilege.”

According to reports, moments before the jump, Rodrigues de Freitas posted a message on Instagram that read, “Who was the crazy one who let me come jump off a bridge?”

The investigation remains ongoing.

Jim Acosta Ridiculed After Comparing Trump Name Removal To Berlin Wall Collapse [WATCH]
News

Jim Acosta Ridiculed After Comparing Trump Name Removal To Berlin Wall Collapse [WATCH]

/

Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta became the focus of widespread online criticism after comparing the removal of President Donald Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center to the fall of the Berlin Wall during a lengthy livestream from Washington, D.C.

Acosta, who left CNN in early 2025 after an 18-year career with the network, spent nearly 11 hours livestreaming from outside the Kennedy Center as workers prepared to remove Trump’s name from the building following a recent federal court ruling, as reported by Fox News.

The livestream, broadcast on Acosta’s YouTube program, “The Jim Acosta Show,” began Friday afternoon and continued into the early hours of Saturday morning.

Much of the broadcast featured a live view of scaffolding covered by a tarp while construction crews worked behind it.

The controversy stemmed from remarks Acosta made during the overnight broadcast as he awaited the removal of the signage.

“This is very much like watching the Berlin Wall coming down,” Acosta said around 3:30 a.m.

“It is a sign that mankind, that humankind can stand up against tyranny,” he continued.

“As long as it took, we pledged to continue to have this coverage going, and by golly, we did, because we knew how much this meant to a lot of people out there, and we know how important this was.”

The sign removal followed a legal battle over the name of the performing arts center. In December 2025, the Kennedy Center board voted to rename the venue the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

The move sparked opposition from Democrats and other critics. A Democratic member of Congress subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the decision.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that the center’s original name, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, must be restored.

Ironically, Acosta was not present when workers actually began removing the letters. After spending much of the night broadcasting from the site, he returned home to sleep, leaving the livestream in the hands of his producer.

More than 10 hours into the broadcast, the producer informed viewers that workers appeared to be removing the letters.

“It looks like they are potentially touching the letters,” the producer said.

“The letters are coming down officially. So this means I’m probably gonna have to give Jim Acosta a call, and he’s not gonna be very happy because he will be woken up.”

Acosta then returned to the scene to continue the livestream.

“I had just gotten home, and we thought this might take place later in the morning, and of course, they did this in the dead of the night,” Acosta said.

“They did this at three in the morning, and to make it the icing on the cake, the chef’s kiss in all of this for Donald Trump — is that they had to put up a giant white tarp to shield Trump and his feelings from the humiliation of seeing this all come down in front of the cameras.”

Acosta also criticized Trump during the livestream, saying the president “slapped his name illegally and obnoxiously on the exterior of the Kennedy Center” and later claiming Trump “operates like a small child [who] doesn’t wanna give his toy away, doesn’t want to hand over his toy after his mommy and daddy have told him it’s time to go to bed.”

Clips of Acosta’s comments quickly spread across social media, where users mocked the comparison between the removal of signage and the collapse of Communist control in Eastern Europe.

One X user wrote, “Ah, yes. The Berlin Wall famously came down to a crowd of one guy talking to himself and not throngs of elated prisoners. Jim Acosta is wild.”

Conservative commentator Matt Whitlock also weighed in, writing, “This is wild. I can’t imagine having so little going on in my life that I would sit outside a building all day waiting for a name to get removed from it.”

Other users posted similar reactions, with one commenting, “Decades of Communist oppression V. a sign on a building. The similarities are striking.”

The clips continued circulating online throughout the weekend, generating thousands of reactions and turning Acosta’s livestream into one of the most discussed political media moments of the day.


Scroll to Top